The Sun. — London, England, 1818-11-26 00:00:00

LA W RL G 1117\ 1- C . TAT OF CT - LINCEBX, Nov. 25. THE LORD CHSNCELLOCS INDiSPOSITION. It is now certaii, that the Lott° CHANCELLOR Will not duriag the present Terui.—The answer to (tie inquiries this day was, that his I. tr:fsltifi "gas a butter, but still experienced (..tisiderahle inconvenie;',ce frt>th his late attack. His Lordship's 1)0(14 health is perfectly re s tored. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nor. 25. TEbt•E'Esi V. ORD. Mr : Bct.t. requested his Honour to. fit some slay, for the hearing at the motions in ,this case. As Friday trus the day for short causes, probably they thigtit be put clown for hearing after the causes were disposed of. The ricti-CtraNCEwitt bad no objection to hear them that day, but he begged leave to .state Mat he must have been muck misunderstood in what he had formerly said on this case helot.; mention ed to bun. He certainly did not eulogize site Lord Chancellor, for he did not think the seat of justice a proper place for doing so. He was anxious, as touch as possible, so discourage ap plications for removing cases from this Court to that ot the Lord Chancellor, because be knew Eris Lordship had such a weight of business on his handsx taud which tto person could dispose of but himself. He, therefore, felt that it was his duty to reheve his Lordship as muck as he could, tor the number of appeals before his Lordship was very great. This was what he stated Gimlet-ly e and it was therefore a kind of raisundetstattding to say be praised the Lord Chancellor, Inc nicely such praise would be improper front the seat Le had the honour to 611. Mr. BELL said no person scireiyemilit have can det.•:load his Hoctota otherwise. He was glad his Hanour bad fix.ed the cnotidsos (Gr Frialay. The other cuts were of do ittteress. GOURT OF KING'S BENCH, Noc. 23. THU KING- V. FRANCIS GORE, ESQ. This was act andicttnent agatost the defendant for publishing a. filsel of and concerting Dr. horpe, one of the late Judges en 'atm Court of Itetx.ta, in the province of Upper Cataada, of which settlement, at the tittle of the public-a tient in tutesticau, the defendant was Lieettereitiat- GtrOCciACC. At the treee before Mr.. osteeeAbbott, at the Sittings en Westminster after last Easter Term, the defendant w i ts found guilty. In Tti ttety Teem, Mr. Se4eant Copley moved for a sole to shew cense why the verdict shoold not be set aside, and a new trial granted, ott the ground that the I.aersed -fudge ought not to have suffered the libel to he read and submitted to the Jury, intstooth as the evidence of its publication was not admissible in point of law, and the case was now called on for argument. It will be recollected, that the alleged Mid was contained in a printed pamphlet, phritort ing to he the laistotyof the proceedias4,7s of a party which was 'tipposed t.C9 hare formed itself iii the province of Conieda, tti .ppn4itittu to the Executive fliktverntnent et that Calotly ; Dr. Unique having solo years previous to the nuldicatioo been one of Ike J.:l ;l es of the Conti of King's Biomes in that Seteletneot, anehaUtged in the pamphlet to have actively lent hirat;cll to the objects of the party itr q we'st;tto. The nanaph/et professed to he an airsever to a state mein which appeared in one of the provincial panels, called " The Guardian," and in various faarts of it reflected strongly upon the character and conduct of Dr. Thorpe doting the tense he was ,a Judge eta the Co fotty, twributing to hint a turbulent acid sedi tious ditz p(tti Osi-6at. he had, in various charges to ahe Graed Juries of ti n e Colony, ad dressed to them highly inflammatory language, injurious to his Afaiesty's Goverouseut en the Sealeateat acid had in utliet• instances been guilty Of acts of misconduct, which tendered hint au tont person for the high situation tie bad filled. At ,the trial, theevidenre offered to prove the pub lication of the libel, was that of Mr. Servant Ft kb, lVha , at the period in question, was Attor ney-General of the province, and be stated, that is the latter coil of 1809, he was at the Govern ment House, and in a private conference with the &defoliant, the latter produced (tons a box, in which there were several copies of a pamphlet, the pamphlet in question, which he put into wit ness's hand to read. Witness did not consider this as an official communication in his character of Attorney-General, as he had within to do upon et, but as only a communication frotteone private Geotlemare to another—but he con sidered it a confidential communication. He b a it no detections front the defendant to take any steps upon it. He admitted that unless his official situation as Attorney-General had in troduced him to the confidence and intimacy of the defendant, such a communication would not have been matte to him, until he acquired such coofidence by some other means. The pamphlet was not delivered to him for his guidance or go vernment in his office of Attorney-General, and he did not think it would have been delivered to him unless lie bad been Attorney-General, but it was not put into his hands for the purpose of giv ing advice. Mr. Setjeant Copley, subMitted that this was not admissible evidence of publication to make the defendant liable, contending that all communicatious between public functionaries were in their nature official, and therefore privileged. `Tice Learned Jrntlge, however, over-ruled the ob jectioo, and the defendant was found guilty. Mr. SCARLET-I' and Mr. TURTON stewed CSUSe against the rule above-mentioned, and contended that it was too broad a proposition to say, that all commuoications were official, becanie they were made from one official person to another, sod therefore privileged. The test of the °kite tiou taken on behalf ut the defendant was, that in tn,king this supposed official communication to ttie Attorney• General, the defendant, as Gover -406 gave no directions upon it, nor asked any atlvice as to what course he should pursue. It Ehoold be, recollected that this libel, which was a t i.sue of tie grossest calumny upon the prosecu tor, was not ruhlished until two years•after the Istier left the colony, and therefore it could-not • be 'said that the defendant was then comtnuni catin.g,.otliciallv .with the Attorney-GentA al, upon att.) measures ‘v.hich it could be then necessary to attopt repecting a Gentleman who was in another part of the world. The Attorney-General, in his evidence, expressly stated that he considered the coptnitnicAt tot as private and confidential, as be tween one private individual 'and another, because Ike had Vt•Ceived no instructions upon it, alld was oot to adopt ally measures in his oaicial character. The single question was, whether the Learned Judge ,had done wroni holding that this was tun art official communication, and not prohibited any tide ot kw. Unless any sound distinc ion could he found to bring this within the privilege claimed, there was no ground for disturbing the Mr. Serjeant COPLEY- and fir. D'OYLEY, in suppott of the ride, insisted that all cotillion:lea ting made by the Governor of a province, pri vately, to (lie Attothey-General, respecting per f,4ll4S loulding public situations iii such province, aaul sihO bad formed, or were supposed to have formed, a party aga inst the Government, were facie privileged Co UMW ItiCat jo Its , and that the mots lay on the other side -to bileW at such commuoientiotts were not privileged. It was dear, that iii this case, there had been a party (soused in the province - of Upper Canada, inimical to the welfare of the Provincial Government, up oft the subject of which it was Most natural that the Goveroor would cOnfee with the Attorney- General of tite•province.' If was not necessary to establish that this was an official communi cation, by chewing that the Attorney-General had received insfiortioos to ...loin legal measures ; it teas sofficieut that it was a communication be tween out official functionary sod another, upon a subject which was intimately connected with the public welfare. Upon grounds of public po licy, nothing would be more dangerous than to hold that such communieatioos were not privi leged. They likened this to the case of private communications between the Secretary of State at home and his Majesty's Attorney-General in England, ,upon subjects anti persons coll imated with public trausactions. Nothing would he snore dangerous than to hold that such coin- • mooications were unprotected. lf, then, so much clearer home, such communications were privileged, a „fortiori the reason for such privi lege was greater in Goverometias at a distance. Upon groonds of public policy this was a privi lel„te of the greatest importance to uphold invio late, and therefore they trusted it would receive the protection of the Court. It was clear that die Learned Setjeaut who haul given evidence upon flee point, had only given his opinion as to . the nature of the commettication ; and did not profess to state positively that it was not of cial. In fact his mind was a complete blank as to what isassed between him and the defendant, and there fore, in the absence of any positive testimony as to the fact, the Court would not assume that it was any thing but an official Communication. The CHIEF JUSTICE—The only question is, whether this publication should have been read at the trial, and submitted to the consideration of the Slay. What conclusion they were to draw from the whole of the evidence is quite a distinct matter. It is contended that I should not haste received this publication in evidence, because every contrani cation between persons standing in the situation of the defendant and the witness are prinui facie privileged, and that the burthen of skewing any . particular communication lies on the other side. I confess, however, it seems to me that that proposition is laid down too broadly. It is too crotch, to say that every thing which passes het MeCii persons in their situation is privileged, although it shall have no relation to the official (rosiness which either of them have to discharge. Rut even supposing the proposition contended for were a d o pted, still we should have to see whether, in this case, the burthen said to thrown on the other side has not been taken op, and whether they have not proved negatively that - this was not sock a communication as should be protected. The whole of the testimony of the only witness examined upon this subject goes to skew that this was not an official communication, because he was 'to do nothing upon it. This pamphlet was taken from a box in which there were several others of the same description ; and therefore the transaction itself skews that it bad not the appearance of an official commuoication. If appeited to me at the trial, that to receive this evidence, was not at all to narrow the privilege which very properly belongs to persons filling official situations. This was a very different case from the one put ley the Learned Counsel for the defendant. Here a printed pamphlet, re lating to a transact iou which hail taken place at some ansecedent period, is put into the wit ness's hands. It was not put into his hands for the purpose of taking any legal advice, or of . doing any legal act upon it. Therefore, giving the fullest latitude to the privilege of communica tions passing between parties in the situations which those two gentlemen filled, it appears to me, that the prosecutor has completely borne the onus throwir upon him, by skewing that this was not a privileged communication. I thought at the trial, as I think now, that I should not be justi fied, if I had not suffered this pamphlet to be read in evidence, and submitted to the Jury for their final determination. Mr. Justice BAYLEYI am of the same opinion. With respect to privileged communications, I take the distinction to be this—lf it is a communica tion with the law-officer of the Government foe. public purposes it is privileged ; but if it is a c o te 7 munication merely for the gratification of private. malice, or for other private purposes, it is not pri vileged. , It does not appear in this case that the communication made by the Alefendant to the At torney-General was for a private•purpose, and therefore I think the evidence rightitad-. milted. Mr. Justice HOLROYDI am also of the Sallie , opinion. Here the pamphlet was delivered to the witness as to a private individual, and nut for the purpose of founding any legal proceeding upon it in his official character ; and it appears to me, that if such pamphlet contained any libellous matter, it is to be treated as any other libellous publication of ttte like kind.--,(Rule discharged.) statute. Aver for Sentence upon the tiefeudn iu, another day, as shall he agreed upon between the parties. CRIMINAL INFORMATION.-CHEAP \VI N E COM" VANIES. Mr. SCARLETT moved for a rule to shew cause why a criminal information should not he filed against two persons, named Thomas and Richard Abbott s, cart ying on the business of a Commer cial Wine Company in Skinner-street, for a mis demeanour, in conspiring to defraud certain mer chants of their property. The Learned Counsel stated, that the nature of the case disclosed upon the affidavits, which he had in support of the [no tion against these Gentlemen, was this :—Messrs. Ahbotts, brothers, carried on a very extensive business as wine-merchants, in Skinner-street. They had been in the habit of employing persons in embarrassed circumstances to buy wines of dif ferent merchants, and then taking such wines ofi those persons' hands at prices infinitely bel , w the market price, paying ready money, the real mer chants in the result being defrauded of their pro perty, never, in fact, receiving the price of their goods front tine agents employed by Messrs. Ah botts in these transactions. The affidavit of a person named James Wrench, a ba'nkrupt wine merchant, one of the principal agents employed in thi's business, stated a variety of transactions of this sort, and from his deposition it appeared that during a period of nine months, viz. from June, 1817, to March, 1818, be, had obtained wines for this Commercial Company to the amount, at the regular market price, of 16001. for which they gave hint no more than 10251. making a difference in favour of Messrs. Abbotts of 5921. Bs. 7d. In these transactions Messrs. Abbotts had always imposed sect ecy upon Mr. Wrench, and they Lad latterly prevailed upon him to keep back their names, and use the names of fictitious persons as a colour to the proceediog. Another person of the name of Mitchell Joseph, connected with one Robert Dunn, was also employed to a con siderable extent by Messrs. Abbotts i❑ the same way, to the great injury of several respectable wine -merchants, amongst whom were Messrs. Mallett and Co. Messrs. Abbott and Co. of St. Swithin's-lane, and a Mr. Simpson. The Learned Counsel likened the conduct of these persons to the receivers of stolen goods, and prayed that a criminal information might issue. The CHIEF Jusrical—Take a rule to spew cause. I forbear saying any thing more upon the subject at present.—Rule Nisi granted. HABEAS CORPUS. Mr. GAZELES moved for a Habeas Corpus, di rected to the keeper of Winchester gaol, com manding him to bring up the body of a person committed to his custody under Lord Elleubo rough's Act, for shooting at a person named in the warrant. The'defendant was next door neigh bour of a house wherein some persons had be come intoxicated at a bean-feast, and being dis turbed in his rest, he had requested the parties to make less noise. This produced an aggrava tion of the evil, and the parties, instead of stub. cluing their noise, attacked the defendant's door with stones. Irritated by this proceeding, he presented a blunderbuss loaded only with gun powder, and the trigger being struck with a stone, the piece went off, burst, and shattered one of the defendant's. own kands sa iitnc4„that be was obliged to undergo amputation. islkiother person was injured ; and for the offence of firing at the assailants.above merwioned, he was appre hended aunt committed to Winchester gaol. The affidavits stating the above facts being read, The Court granted the Writ. CORONERS' FEES. Mr. Janvis and Mr. CROSS shoved cause against a Rule for a Mandamus directed to the Justices of Oxfordshire, commanding theni to pay ,to Mr. Cecil, one of the Coroners of the County, cer tain travelling allowances tot returning from in quisitions held by virtue of his Office. The ques tion was one of considerable importance as to the construct-ion of the 25 Geo. 11. c. 29. a. I. name ly, whether by virtue of that Act, which provides " That for every mile which he or they shall he compelled to travel front the usual place of his or their abode, to take such Inquisitions, he or they shall he allowed the further sum of 9;1. over and above the said sum of 205." the Coroner shall be allowed 9d. per mile in returning, ifter he has held his Inquisition. Mr. TAUNTON was heard in support of the Rule, and The COURT held, that thiJnetregilid right in disallowing any- travelling expences in returning iron► the Inquisitions, and discharged the Rule, with costs. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. THE COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS OF THE DISTRICT OF RYE V. THE COMMISSIONERS FOB THE HAR BOUR OF RYE. Upon this case the argument postponed on Fri day last was resumed, and Mr. Serjeant -COPLEY discussed the grounds upon which the rule conditional was granted.— The Learned Counsel commenced . with quoting the statute of the 37th of the King, by which the Commissioners of Sewers were constituted, in order to - slim that those Commissioners were authorised to erect dams and other works for the preservation of the land committed to their care ; and conclitUd that toe bare possession of any place upon which any such dam or work was erected, was sufficient to invest them with the right of action against any wrong doers towards such WOOS. With regard to the question of the Chief Justice, on a former day—namely, whether there was any case in which the Trustees or Conductors of any public work had brought an action for in jury done to such public work, those Trustees or Conductors stating the possession to be in. them— selves, the Learned Counsel admitted that he had not been able to find any such case.—but he ar -gued that to find such a case was not essential to _the maintenance of the rule, as the present was . riot a case in point ; the plaintiffs itt this instance Ataving brought their action, not merely as the 1 1 . 4 tr t ustees or Inspectors of the public work alluded .tts„ but as the persons invested with the posses sion .of t he property upon which the dam was erected b y the Statute of Sewers.—As to the ob 4ervation, that persons employed by those Corn• tnissitineta could not bring an action against them ifor wages or for work done, because the commis sion fornictl a Court of it did not follow, ttp that, even admitting this observation to b h ? these Commi ss i oner s were p rec l u ded front - 11 o r inF, an action against any wrong-doers, or for :to injury done to themselves. There were, it A known, three public bodies who were entitle d bring such actions of trespass as that under con c deration—namely, Commissioners for Dr ei("lg u i Surveyors of luclosures, and the Corporation,_fi, ( t ) l i i i e t l l ' e rin o it te Trinity House. side, otrse Reverting to the all e g iluu b that plaintiffs had oat - . right of possession as could. invest them , 'AI ( t h right of action, the Learned Counsel observe A d that it was iu evidence that these plaintiffs o purchased the materials of which the dam jojure by the defendants was constructed, while OW c lam was constructed under the immediate direction ° the plaintiffs, who continued it; the possession tipf to the period at which the injury complained 0 1, took place ; and these circumstaoces coustitaie( he thought, a sufficient right of possession to O P title them to bling the present action• The CI-CIEF JI.ISTICd observed, that the CO!v missioners of the Dock-yards most have a s trong er right of possession in the Yards under their c 0". trout than the present plaintiffs, and. yet he prehended that there was no instance whatever I I these Commissioners having brought any neli° ' against wrong-doers,stating the possession ofth c " 6- Yards to be in themselves. Mr. Serjeant COPLEY begged with deference 1.. remark, that the case adverted to by the L earn h e . Judge was totally differeut.from that before Court. For the Dock-yards were not the proPerti of the Commissioners alluded to, but that of this King. These yards were, indeed, as much the property of his Majesty as the palace at Windsor; and conseq is the Commissioners of th°s yards could not describe them as their property any respect. Mr. Serjeant LENS spoke in support of the valet • maintaining that his Learned Friend wh°Pairie ceded him had throughout argued upon P e r '7 o principii, inferring the right of possession Hip use, and the right of use from possession.. Learned Friend had not, he contended, litteredword to chew that the plaintiff's had a "Y i Id ; possession in the place upon which the dam al to was erected, as could entitle them to bri n g • present action. ed Messrs. Serjeants BLOSSET and TADDY fo" °- on the same side. The CHIEF JUSTICE expressed his concurrelle! in the opinion of the Counsel for the defendalli; His Lordship observed, that from the enactaleo, of the statute of Henry VIII. constituting Gigoe, missions of Sewers, not a single instance 118° L is curred of an action similar to the present el :4 0 0 was an observation of Judge Buller s, tlit t ' ar o precedent could be found for any propos" co- o r of proceeding, that circumstance furnished a°og, gument against the propriety of such proc eeti die After reviewing the arguments on both sid es ', Learned Judge concluded with pronottn cinb apti decision that the rule should be made atsoltt'te' that judgment should be entered as in the cas e . nonsuit. . 0 10 , The other Judges concurred in this (leas t W ' - O Mr. Serjeant BEST intimated, as was I , stood, that further proceedings would be , --- tuted in this case. , d lit. --- RozßEßltts.—The house of Sir John n ail at Cambexwell, .. - ;as broken open on ~I:ite night, and plundered of various articles °Yoele and linen.—Au attempt was made on the hot of Mr. %Vybrow, of Camberwell, on the soti night.---A young woman, named WiWarns' to, met in Peckham-lane on Sunday night , bl 4 men, who robbed her of all her moneY -111 bundle of clothes. COAL MARKET, NovENDEB S 5. m a. gt, ships at wen• - &lips sol OA od. 4 16. 9 .... .......33g. , t 16. • •• 9 Sunderland . c t7s• od• 0 4 ... ------- M ARR ED We l° re c i On Tuesdasy last, Mr. J. G. Saunders of Stani-spi!tu Park, Middlesex, to Ellivabetti, sister of Mr. Battle-bridge, St. Pancras. / , , /, -iilln t itZ,'" --- - pt, AL E HE c ou ) 4 4t tiV9-IAN i W b l) t .„ 4,he t r ral), :It 11 4 „1 4 d tl ' i a - l `::- gtid - at th• 'NI. 4Y ' l l'e 21 i t 1;4 "our) . ' '' tit kitlrt i . 4"d t I) 4111-4 * 1 trk4 4 .4. i Iht. t SP 1 / 4 r( )L1 D r „ f , t•sq„. n or 11 1„. 1/ i,rr ei; „. 0 e IS; cj i 'tt t .; , ) N Fji L cif c Q lP4l‘llll I" 1,44 d„ ' 1 F' tz,r 4 1, ;),;hs. °: :::fdly; c o t T (24, , is if) 'Y 4 ‘t i"Up 1 L 1 1,\ ,', ) ,c 4 1 4 ,11 ti ' rt "g kth d o.ai ti 4ft Co t ' 4 4 e 4 4d en . tl tt fo r . 4 41 s of t , 't e „ A. ke tl .S4ni c .^tel t ?it ge :t, , 11,1 1 C4t t 1 1, e gt INotr X t' l t ,,r d 4, 'kcorq , , ( 1h 4 r e ilt Irc4 4 . iv er • A ' "g t 1 ' 1 44. It: 11 is tit 44 1 , 1 4 41f„, 1 Lo, t 4 t l ll ito s s a to e e V; 1, 41 ?, 11i of r :td I t‘sr ~t h e , t (i t et hy it cl4lit'trn er • t4 r ,. 5t.. 4 s%tr, W(4 11 4, le t , • fiw, . `~\~ , DIED.• the. s 1 4 15 4" On Monday last, at Brown , i Oth Year ° 1) el" 4l' Francis Lewis Clason, Esq. of ! Lincoln'sne- lon . , . 6311 i Liw. . . r ya' _ At Hatfield, on the 23d instant, James Penrose, "lg ; Surgeon Extraordinary to the King, and Surgeon t° jesty's Household. - - otti ; the a t , At Chippenham, Wilts, on the 94th instant, ~ ,t" Ero o- - year of his age, Robert Ward, Esq. fortuerly of 6 r e-- street, London. ' ' --- ~~~' 11t" PROVINCIAL BIRTHS, MARRIAGES , AND I.l o ' BIRTHS.Y a i ttif ' On the 23d instant, at Frankfort-place, rtn l. ` o f Gi 1)ll • T. ° , of a daughter. !ic ier , On the 23d instant, the Lady of the Rer • aS r ge ' '' Clifton, Bedfordshire, of a daughter. On le 19th instant, at Stoke House, near Cobliain, the Lady of the Rev: Hugh Smith, of - a sou. .—.......eure....---- tlt it'. sr.% Rai ED. Ro thtl ' 0 In Drumeree Church, li•eland, on the i r c, ,ur ` l' Rev. Michael de Courcy. eldest son of Admiral de poj ore e l Emily, daughter of William Smyth, Esq . °I , v et county of Westmeath. • Mr. F . '''' On the IGth inst. at East Bourne, Sussex,' . , to , of Tenterden, to Miss ,Mary Miller, On the (2th inst. at Ruckinge, A i r . George of East Bourr & icor Miss Wood, of Eastwell. nllySie'l On Friday week, Mr. W. William s, professor o f 0 r ug hest at LlEtusaintiffaid-glan-Conway, to Miss - 1301 6 "Tynewyd, Llandrillo•iii-lthos., hurch, t- , •4. On Tuesday se'onight, at S'crilcoates C tio .i .°l° of k iwi, to ,- of the Thomas, Greenland ship , - daughter of Mr. John Fox. __— 1 0* ~......---_ , . DIED. , pill, I ti to rti Yesterday week - , at the Palace, Maidstonetl 9r ;... t he c°.. a d/ of the late John Pitt, Esq. of KiogSton Hou,.--', u'and 1;17" of Dorset, mother of William Morto n Pitt, , E s q . v i c i# 1 mother of the late Countess of Romney. . A 1, r e..e iCk r c. , 1 On the 14th inst at Barham, Kent, Mrs• . •. o•itle`" stet caster, wife of Colonel Mitlea•Ster, of the P 0 ) 11 . 1 / Prate I°s On Friday last, at NVliitby, Mr. Robert Tlow` ei ' ' el", r e C t l i j,d of the Sophia, of Whitby. , e;,o 1 Gc ur- 11il lt On the Pith inst. at Partsmoutn, .. ,o, ' e ra hle ' I lth Foot, Companion of the Most 1-I . on ott ~,rlr• Order of the Bath. DosluirY: ;31A On Friday week, Mr. John Plosvgate, of c „ft thL c 01 shire. It) the rebellion in i 745, be was cu rritr-itoY s ' .. appointed to prPserve the tratiquillitY of t . h a e rop o f t fr lt i : oef. , ,-:: -with several of his townsme.,e, joined. the tamp $1"01:4 army in the vicinity of Wakefselcl, and fill' ois de s ortr i s as far as Leeds, where they were disinisscd• , o d: .5, Wile, arc, nine children, sixty-two grandchldr.esi):,olool:lrsto:. great-grandchildren, in all 116. One of Iris .1 , 5 , . 0 v., • r ekor born, had living, four great-grandfather'''. tbi ,;o ol° ' fathers; and one grand-daughter, at lwr ti ` r up no less than fire granclmothers. • __..--, , - -, 6r es' -- ' ----- 07, r ' ,f so, 0, 0 ..es. I.ONDON: Printed by J. B. CARSThift S ) l is bed , J , o s l i Ormond-street, Queen-splare; and P u re ) .t a t -0 1*- SCRIPPS, of No. 7, South Nloiton-stt:;optsr , Oilier, No. 112 2 Strand. ; where Adc el Ga . . I,Esisrs, &a, („pust-paiti) must b‘; address